Legal Opinion

Luedeke v. Coursen

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided May 15, 1893PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from order made in supplementary proceedings adjudging the defendant in contempt, and fining him $326.58 and $30 costs.

1Opinion of the Court

Ehrlich, Ch. J.

Where no actual loss or injury is produced by the disobedience to an order in supplementary proceedings, the fine imposed cannot exceed $250 and costs. Code, § 2284. If actual loss or injury is produced, the amount thereof must be based upon legal proof of the damage actually sustained. Moffat v. Herman, 116 N. Y. 135 ; Sudlow v. Know, 7 Abb. (N. S.) 411; De Jonge v. Brenneman, 23 Hun, 332; Clark v. Bininger, 75 N. Y. 344; King v. Flynn, 37 Hun, 329; Gallagher v. O'Neil, 21 N. Y. St. Repr. 163. Ho such assessment of damages appears by the appeal book, and the order appealed…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Erie Railway Company v. . RamseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. Moffat v. . HermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Clark v. . BiningerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re GoslinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  2. Ross v. La CagninaNew York Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Taber v. Manhattan Ry. Co.The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1895
  4. Taber v. Manhattan Railway Co.The Superior Court of New York City · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API